Both Eric Wittenberg and Harry Smeltzer have linked to a news item that covers a recent talk given by Civil War Times editor, Dana Shoaf. Harry noted that it appears that Dana’s talk is based on a presentation made at last summer’s meeting of the Society for Civil War Historians. After reading it I have to agree with Harry since I was also in the audience. Dana’s talk was first rate and very helpful for a group composed mainly of academic historians. Here is an excerpt that summarizes Dana’s main point:

That is what Shoaf argued for during his talk Monday, titled, “When Worlds Collide: The Problems of Academics and Popular Civil War Magazines.” “The problem with academic historians is they are not reaching a wide popular audience,” Shoaf said. He said there is a need for factual, well-researched historical articles that are moderately priced and appeal to the masses. Shoaf said that in his business, people often are reluctant to read social history because they think it is boring. They want articles about battles, but Shoaf said they like social history if they aren’t aware that’s what they are reading.

I agree with the basic thrust of Dana’s argument, but if we are to judge where we are currently in bridging some of these divides between academic and popular audiences perhaps we should broaden our focus. Unfortunately, the ensuing discussion on Eric’s blog is focused on the question of whether to include footnotes as does/did North and South Magazine. Granted, it’s an interesting question, but that is not the point that Dana was making in his SCWH presentation, and, apparently in his recent talk. Dana believes that academic historians should be focused on reaching a broader audience and that his magazine provides the perfect venue. Well, who would disagree with that; in fact, he has done just that with CWT since taking on editorial responsibilities. I’ve already said that as soon as my subscription runs out with N&S I will be signing on with CWT.

Actually, it seems to me that academic Civil War historians are deeply involved in engaging the general public. Since moving to Charlottesville in 2000 a large number of academic historians have come through to give presentations, including Gary Gallagher, Peter Carmichael, James I. Robertson, William C. Davis, William Lee Miller, Michale Holt, Edward Ayers, and the list goes on and on. You can flip through any of the Civil War magazines and find countless programs/conferences and trips that are led by professional historians. Consider Shepherd College’s yearly Civil War conference as well as Gary Gallagher’s yearly 3-day tour sponsored by the University of Virginia. Again, the list goes on and on. You will notice that every state that has organized a Sesquicentennial Committee they have included professional historians on their advisory boards. Next week the Virginia Sesquicentennial Commission will hold its first major event at the University of Richmond. This day-long series of panels will include some of the top academic historians in the field and is expected to attract upwards of 2,000 people from all over the country. I haven’t even scratched the surface of the ways in which Civil War historians are working to engage and educate the general public.

What seems to be lost in this discussion is the fact that no other group of academic historians outside of the Civil War is as involved in engaging the general public. It’s not even a close second.

It’s time for Ken Burns to dust off his Steenbeck. Rick Perry has decided to ease Texas into some kind of secessionist revolt. This was bravely put forth on the historic GOP Tea Bagging Day. So in “The Civil War 2.0″ Ken can cast Perry as Jeff Davis, struggling mightily to represent his people, trying to maintain their way of life (through their winter of longing for the glory days of Bush) against the tyrannical onslaught of Yankee oppressors (led by Kay Bailey Hutchison as Lincoln). Cannon and rifles are ready and soon explode in a fusillade of tea! The war objective? Hard to tell, but there’s a governor’s race coming up. Here’s the latest poll: U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who has said she plans to run for governor in 2010, leads Perry 56 percent to 31 percent among likely Republican voters, according to a poll released Tuesday by Raleigh, N.C.-based Public Policy Polling.

You can imagine my surprise when I noticed this comment from H.K. Edgerton in response to the last post. For those of you who do not know of Mr. Edgerton, he is one of the more outspoken and charismatic proponents of the black Confederate myth. Interestingly, Mr. Edgerton is African American. He can be found in a Confederate uniform and carrying a Confederate flag on long treks through the South. His last mission took him to the inauguration of Barack Obama in January. I’ve offered extensive commentary about Mr. Edgerton over the course of the life of this blog, which you can find at the bottom.

It is unfortunate that those of you who were educated in the Federal school system have such a dim view of the honorable Black confederate soldier. If you can be so proud of the Black Union soldier who received half the pay of his counterpart, one who fought with a bayonet at his back from his white counterpart, watched as his wives were raped by the union soldier and used as concubine, watched as his Southern Black and White families homes were burned, food stuffs to feed innocent women and children stolen, animals killed, women raped and murdered. You go ahead and be proud of the Battle of the Craters, and Denzelle Washington’s Glory as the Union Whites murdered their black’s returning to their lines.

Here in the South we shall continue to honor Napoleon Nelson ant the other the Black men who rode with the Honorable General Nathan Bedford Forrest , and the likes of Holt Collier, Levi Carnine, Rev. Mack Lee and celebrate Dick Poplar in Petersburg, Virginia. The shame is that you truly believe the propaganda of your Northern Master.

Unfortunately, Edgerton’s comment follows the standard Lost Cause narrative along with vague comparisons/references to the challenges that blacks faced in the Union army as well as the North generally. Still, it’s nice to know that he is reading the blog. See the following posts for additional commentary about Edgerton:

Commemoration of the Confederacy as a noble cause began shortly after the Civil War ended in 1865, said Jonathan Sarris, associate professor of history at North Carolina Wesleyan College. The multicultural angle is an effort to appear more inclusive, he said, but it ignores the facts.

“To say that it is not racist but about multiculturalism is an attempt to adopt a modern mind-set,” Sarris said. “You can call it a victory for the forces of multiculturalism when even the defendants of the Confederacy feel they have to pay some lip service to the idea of tolerance.”

Sarris is absolutely right. [By the way, I highly recommend his recent study, A Separate Civil War: Communities in Conflict in the Mountain South] The fact that the SCV has pushed toward emphasizing the multicultural “appeal” of the Confederacy is a sufficient indicator that even they have left the realm of the past for a mythical one that allows for continued identification and celebration. It wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that the SCV’s emphasis on their multicultural heritage makes them the hippies of Confederate remembrance. Sadder yet is the reduction of Confederate history and symbolism to the kinds of games pictured above: bobbing for pigs feet, hub cap hurling and the Redneck mud pit belly flop contest. Yeah, I’m sure that’s exactly how their Confederate ancestors hoped to be remembered.

There is no war over how to remember the Confederacy nor is there a cultural war between two Souths. Sure, you can find pockets of partisanship here and there, but do we really believe that a substantial portion of the nation is aware of any of this or feels as if it has a stake in the outcome?